Shops & other venues that still insist on masks.

[patrick.hearn3]

There’s certainly a case to say the government should have been encouraging businesses to drop all this to align with official guidance. But what hope is there when even rail operators like LNER are still doing the passive-aggressive stuff.

[..]

It’s rather depressing that, a year or so after all the vulnerable groups completed their course of vaccination, we’re still in this odd state of being normal but not normal. My work is the same - the official line was that all social distancing signage was supposed to come down at the beginning of this month (in my particular building this mysteriously happened some time before that!), yet again we’re still plastered with it all.

Official guidance (April '22) btw does still include when to consider wearing a face covering:

• when you are coming into close contact with someone at higher risk of becoming seriously unwell from COVID-19 or other respiratory infections
• when COVID-19 rates are high and you will be in close contact with other people, such as in crowded and enclosed spaces
• when there are a lot of respiratory viruses circulating, such as in winter, and you will be in close contact with other people in crowded and enclosed spaces"

COVID-19 rates remain high and pharmacies, GPs etc are places where you're more likely to come into close contact with someone at higher risk of becoming seriously unwell. I can see it's reasonable why they might want to set conditions of entry.

Equally, if there are staff at risk or who have family at risk. There are businesses - like LNER - with lots of opportunities to catch it and where staff absence has a big effect on the ability to provide services. I can understand why some businesses might want to mitigate risk.

 

[102 fan]

Official guidance (April '22) btw does still include when to consider wearing a face covering:

• when you are coming into close contact with someone at higher risk of becoming seriously unwell from COVID-19 or other respiratory infections
• when COVID-19 rates are high and you will be in close contact with other people, such as in crowded and enclosed spaces
• when there are a lot of respiratory viruses circulating, such as in winter, and you will be in close contact with other people in crowded and enclosed spaces"

COVID-19 rates remain high and pharmacies, GPs etc are places where you're more likely to come into close contact with someone at higher risk of becoming seriously unwell. I can see it's reasonable why they might want to set conditions of entry.

Equally, if there are staff at risk or who have family at risk. There are businesses - like LNER - with lots of opportunities to catch it and where staff absence has a big effect on the ability to provide services. I can understand why some businesses might want to mitigate risk.

Covid is not the first respiratory virus. What did we do prior to 2019? And attitudes like that calls into question the whole point of the vaccine. What was the point of two jabs and all the following boosters if we're still, in the places you mention, acting like it's 2020?

 

[yorkie]

Official guidance (April '22) btw does still include when to consider wearing a face covering:

• when you are coming into close contact with someone at higher risk of becoming seriously unwell from COVID-19 or other respiratory infections
• when COVID-19 rates are high and you will be in close contact with other people, such as in crowded and enclosed spaces
• when there are a lot of respiratory viruses circulating, such as in winter, and you will be in close contact with other people in crowded and enclosed spaces"

This guidance is utterly absurd and does not exist in sensible countries.

COVID-19 rates remain high ...

How do you define high? Case rates have been plummeting recently. But everyone is going to be exposed.

and pharmacies, GPs etc are places where you're more likely to come into close contact with someone at higher risk of becoming seriously unwell. I can see it's reasonable why they might want to set conditions of entry.

It's not reasonable and it would be discriminatory. It is also illogical because flimsy, loose fitting masks (of the sort generally worn to comply with mandates or conditions of entry) are ineffective and if anyone distrusts vaccines they can choose to wear an effective tight-fitting FFP2/3 mask.

Equally, if there are staff at risk or who have family at risk.

They can choose to wear effective masks if they wish to delay their exposure. They cannot prevent exposure and it makes no difference what others wear.

There are businesses - like LNER - with lots of opportunities to catch it and where staff absence has a big effect on the ability to provide services.

Staff absence is now much less of an issue than it was (back when masks were required), due to increasing levels of immunity.

I can understand why some businesses might want to mitigate risk.

What risk? Literally everyone is going to be exposed and any individual who wishes to reduce their risk of exposure has the ability to do so themselves (not that they can prevent being exposed and generating immunity)

Covid is not the first respiratory virus. What did we do prior to 2019? And attitudes like that calls into question the whole point of the vaccine. What was the point of two jabs and all the following boosters if we're still, in the places you mention, acting like it's 2020?

Exactly.

So there is more than one Dr Who museum in the country. You could always go to this one instead https://www.museumofclassicsci-fi.com/

Agreed; people need to say enough is enough and vote with their feet... and their wallets.

 

[patrick.hearn3]

This guidance is utterly absurd and does not exist in sensible countries.

The previous poster had said 'There’s certainly a case to say the government should have been encouraging businesses to drop all this to align with official guidance', and I was pointing out what the guidance says. I note your opinion on the guidance, but it doesn't change it.

How do you define high? Case rates have been plummeting recently. But everyone is going to be exposed.

High is subjective but that's what the guidance says. As a semantic point, a level can be lower than it was and still be high.

(To my mind 2.5m people with symptomatic COVID-19 can be counted as 'high'. So can 2,000 headline deaths in the last seven days compared with, say, 30,000 annual deaths in a bad 'flu year. But that's my perspective and others' may differ: it doesn't affect the argument that a business can consider it to be high and within the guidance make provisions it deems prudent. I'm not going to prolong the argument though, feel free to have the last word.)

 

[Cloud Strife]

Agreed; people need to say enough is enough and vote with their feet... and their wallets.

As someone who studies a lot of data on tourism for a living, I can tell you that the type of person to 'vote with their feet' is usually a pretty poor customer. There's actually an interesting reverse correlation between 'amount of money spent' and 'strength of ideology' - the more fanatical the person, the less money they spend.

 

[Class 33]

Equally, if there are staff at risk or who have family at risk. There are businesses - like LNER - with lots of opportunities to catch it and where staff absence has a big effect on the ability to provide services. I can understand why some businesses might want to mitigate risk.

Companies like LNER need to get with the times, and accept that A) Mandatory face mask laws were scrapped over 3 months ago in England and a few weeks ago in Scotland, and B) The vast vast majority of passengers on their services are not wearing them any more and are getting back to a normal life. So they need to respect and show courtesy to this by giving it up with their constant peddling via onboard PA announcements about wearing face masks! It's just absolutely pointless and ridiculous the longer they keep their nonsense up!!

 

[ainsworth74]

I've seen a lot of places that have signs and websites wittering on about "please wear a mask", "please sanitise hands" and even a few that still have "please respect social distancing"! I have, however, been asked to actually do any of these things precisely zero times. Reality is that a lot of these are a mixture of box ticking exercises from a risk assessment/keep the insurer happy point of view and just inertia of the sign got put up or the website edited because there was a firm "you must do x in order to re-open your business" and there's not been the reverse impetuous.

I realised just this Friday gone that the appointment reminder texts that we send out still went on about "wear a face covering, sanitise hands, don't arrive early we can only have one person in at at time". Not because we're still doing that (wear a mask, don't wear a mask, we really don't care either way for instance) but simply because it had been forgotten about! It has now been fixed to remove all that extraneous wordage

Getting wound up about places which have signs or websites that are out of date really isn't doing anyone any favours. If a place is actually insisting on it then take your business elsewhere as, at the end of the day, it's up to the business owner if they want to insist on it or not. I think they'd be silly to do so as they'd clearly be turning some business away. But that's their lookout and their business will either fold or survive with lower takings.

We want to get back to normal, getting het up about signs that someone has forgotten really doesn't help. They'll get taken down before too much longer, probably the next time someone looks for some space to stick a different sign up. That's often what happens to old notices and posters in my place. Though I was proactive about taking down the sign saying masks were a legal requirement! The ones babbling on about sanitising hands lasted until we needed the space and went "oh, yeah we can ditch those can't we?".

 

[102 fan]

I've seen a lot of places that have signs and websites wittering on about "please wear a mask", "please sanitise hands" and even a few that still have "please respect social distancing"! I have, however, been asked to actually do any of these things precisely zero times. Reality is that a lot of these are a mixture of box ticking exercises from a risk assessment/keep the insurer happy point of view and just inertia of the sign got put up or the website edited because there was a firm "you must do x in order to re-open your business" and there's not been the reverse impetuous.

I realised just this Friday gone that the appointment reminder texts that we send out still went on about "wear a face covering, sanitise hands, don't arrive early we can only have one person in at at time". Not because we're still doing that (wear a mask, don't wear a mask, we really don't care either way for instance) but simply because it had been forgotten about! It has now been fixed to remove all that extraneous wordage

Getting wound up about places which have signs or websites that are out of date really isn't doing anyone any favours. If a place is actually insisting on it then take your business elsewhere as, at the end of the day, it's up to the business owner if they want to insist on it or not. I think they'd be silly to do so as they'd clearly be turning some business away. But that's their lookout and their business will either fold or survive with lower takings.

We want to get back to normal, getting het up about signs that someone has forgotten really doesn't help. They'll get taken down before too much longer, probably the next time someone looks for some space to stick a different sign up. That's often what happens to old notices and posters in my place. Though I was proactive about taking down the sign saying masks were a legal requirement! The ones babbling on about sanitising hands lasted until we needed the space and went "oh, yeah we can ditch those can't we?".

Not much point in a discussion if we can't talk about certain areas regarding Covid. I do take exception to any business that continues to advertise a mask ruling, especially one that completely disregards exemptions. There's been ample time to change websites and remove signage. Why shouldn't these places be highlighted?

 

[ainsworth74]

Not much point in a discussion if we can't talk about certain areas regarding Covid.

I'm not sure where I suggested we couldn't discuss things I was simply putting my point of view across about the issue?

There's been ample time to change websites and remove signage.

Yes but that doesn't mean anyone at such a business or venue has been bothered enough to around meticulously taking them down. For most people it doesn't appear to be a priority. Why should it be?

Why shouldn't these places be highlighted?

Personally I don't think it achieves anything productive other than it seems to help people continue to be wound up about things which are, in most cases, not being done deliberately. I either don't notice signs or ignore them because I'm back to normal and some tattered sign from 2020 or 2021 isn't worth worrying about. As I said cases where a business is actually enforcing this sort of thing are different and I'd take my business elsewhere were they to try and insist on me wearing a mask or something. But 50p says the vast majority of cases are old out of date signage that someone will get around to either when they notice or when they need the space for something else. You'd be surprised how quickly signs and posters blend into the background when you're around them all the time in your place of work. I couldn't honestly tell you right now what posters we've got up in our reception because I don't notice them apart from the first time I see them.

 

[bramling]

I'm not sure where I suggested we couldn't discuss things I was simply putting my point of view across about the issue?


Yes but that doesn't mean anyone at such a business or venue has been bothered enough to around meticulously taking them down. For most people it doesn't appear to be a priority. Why should it be?

I don’t know about priority, however in my view there’s a number of good reasons why such signage would better be gone.

We’ve had this for over two years now, and are now at the point where we are picking up some pretty significant consequences. Such signs are an unwelcome reminder of an unpleasant period which as a society we *need* to shake off and properly move on from. I’ve commented before how the disappearance of signage from my immediate workplace has proved surprisingly uplifting. As many predicted here, the UK economy is now in a pretty bad state - it's looking increasingly like we're now into the dreaded stagflation (again predicted here) - whilst Mr Putin hasn't helped, much of this is squarely down to Covid, or more precisely this country's Covid response. We need to get back to where we were in 2019, properly - not in name only. Given the comments also on here about the feral way (some) people are behaving, it's also probably good from a social cohesion perspective.

I’m sure you’re right that many of these signs have simply been left up by default, though equally I don’t doubt that some are an attempt at clinging on. Every sign which comes down is one small step towards our giant leap back to normality.

 

[DelayRepay]

I often see signs advertising events that have already happened, or special offers that have ended. They've just been missed - not worth getting upset about.

In a couple of local businesses I have pointed out of date covid signs and they've been promptly removed.

I think I've mentioned before a local hardware store that still has a notice up asking you not to enter if you've been in China or Northern Italy in the last two weeks!

 

[Cdd89]

I think I've mentioned before a local hardware store that still has a notice up asking you not to enter if you've been in China or Northern Italy in the last two weeks!

I think a lot of these signs probably are indeed forgotten.

However I will never understand how someone whose life revolves around running a shop all day could 'forget' a sign on the main entrance. (I have the same reaction when I notice inefficient procedures in shops: they do this all day every day, why haven't they spotted the efficiency that I spotted the moment I walked in?).

Any obvious outdated signage (not just Covid-related) would mildly bias me against using a business, because if they don't notice something as obvious as that, what else don't they notice? I expect there's a positive correlation between outdated signage and expired products in convenience stores.

 

[david1212]

Had a dental check up earlier this week and they insisted on masks in the waiting room but not when you are in close proximity to the dentist (obviously) when bit from inside your mouth are flying around the room! Very odd.

My dentist is the same. Now large notices that unless you wear a mask you must wait outside until the dentist is ready to see you.

The system was that you had to wait outside until door opened immediately followed by a temperature check and Covid questions.

 

[Strat-tastic]

I've been to the dentist today. Sign on door asking you to wear one but I didn't and no one said anything.

 

[danm14]

I've been to the dentist today. Sign on door asking you to wear one but I didn't and no one said anything.

Likewise, and none of the receptionist, dentist or dental nurse were wearing one (except during the actual dental work, of course, as would always have been the case)

 

[Trog]

Myself I am not that bothered if a shop still wants me to wear a mask, it is a little bit of a faff and I dislike the way my mask makes my nose run all the time. But it is not a big deal and if I have the right to ask anyone coming into my home not to smoke and to take their shoes off, then shop owners have the right to ask me to wear a mask. If I don't like it I can always go elsewhere.

 

[danm14]

then shop owners have the right to ask me to wear a mask

The question is, "should they?"

Should a private business providing an essential service, such as a grocery shop, be permitted to enforce what is effectively a dress code? If you'd asked me that in 2019, I would have said yes; but in 2022 I'd be in favour of prohibiting them from doing so.

 

[Scotrail12]

Not so much insisting but a fairly decent glimpse into LIDL’s attitude to masks. One thing to ‘recommend’ but note how they sneakily added in that it is ‘expected’ for customers to wear masks.

 

[yorkie]

...Personally I don't think it achieves anything productive other than it seems to help people continue to be wound up about things which are, in most cases, not being done deliberately. I either don't notice signs or ignore them because I'm back to normal and some tattered sign from 2020 or 2021 isn't worth worrying about...

I agree, though it is concerning that some organisations were quick to put up such notices but are slow to take them down, and some were worded inappropriately for the time, let alone now.

However some organisations are still very much choosing to keep such signage in place which is completely unacceptable.

Not so much insisting but a fairly decent glimpse into LIDL’s attitude to masks. One thing to ‘recommend’ but note how they sneakily added in that it is ‘expected’ for customers to wear masks.

We need to push back against this nonsense.

I am less likely to use the services of a company that has such ludicrous expectations, unless there is no reasonable alternative.

My expectation is that people will not wear them, though I would consider people who are immunocompromised (etc) to be exempt from this expectation (though they would need to wear a tight fitting FFP2/3 mask, correctly worn/stored/handled to be effective).

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree, though it is concerning that some organisations were quick to put up such notices but are slow to take them down, and some were worded inappropriately for the time, let alone now.

I guess for a lot of places it boils down to "We need to chuck up this signage ASAP so we can re-open" hence the swiftness of them going up. Certainly at my place we chucked up our signage so we could get back to having people in our offices other than just staff (we're small enough we never really bothered with signs just for staff). But there's a lack of "we need to rip this signage down ASAP" moment/impulse. I took down the face covering signage at my place the day they were no longer legally mandated. But other things have clung on for ages until someone has remembered we can take that down or don't need it anymore. Our text message to remind people of their appointment had Covid guff in it until one of our admins last week went "Wait, we don't need this anymore do we?" and there was a collective "Oh yeah, we should probably change that!". It has now been changed!

However some organisations are still very much choosing to keep such signage in place which is completely unacceptable.

Agreed, organisational inertia I, personally, can be fairly forgiving of. Actively still requiring such signage is a different kettle of fish, even worse if it's being actively enforced. Actively enforcing such things is when I take my business elsewhere because I don't have time to deal with that nonsense.

 

[VauxhallandI]

If their signage and message is on their website then I simply won’t visit so it’s not a matter of them being harmless and should be ignored

 

[bramling]

Not so much insisting but a fairly decent glimpse into LIDL’s attitude to masks. One thing to ‘recommend’ but note how they sneakily added in that it is ‘expected’ for customers to wear masks.

I absolutely despise the term “expected” when used in this way. It’s passive-aggressive dictatorialism at its absolute worst.

 

[Cloud Strife]

However some organisations are still very much choosing to keep such signage in place which is completely unacceptable.

Why? It's their business, and English law makes it clear that there's no given right to purchase anything from a shop.

The amount of entitlement here is off-the-scale, to be honest.

 

[Eyersey468]

Why? It's their business, and English law makes it clear that there's no given right to purchase anything from a shop.

The amount of entitlement here is off-the-scale, to be honest.

I think a lot depends on the wording of the signage, if a shop puts a sign up along the lines of you are welcome to wear a mask if you want I would have no issue with that, however when if it is a sign saying you must wear a mask out of consideration of others it is different especially when we have had the things rammed down our throats for the last 2 years.

 

[yorkie]

Why? It's their business, and English law makes it clear that there's no given right to purchase anything from a shop.

It's discrimination. If a business refuses service, they had better have good reason to do so.

But any business that does that is also going to rapidly lose customers; the vast majority of people in the UK are unmasked and so they are massively reducing the size of their customer base.

It makes no sense.

The amount of entitlement here is off-the-scale, to be honest.

I think you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

As someone who studies a lot of data on tourism for a living, I can tell you that the type of person to 'vote with their feet' is usually a pretty poor customer.

Regular customers are of course going to be less likely to choose to stop using a particular business.

If a particular business decides they don't want anything other than their loyal regulars, they may not last long, depending on what business their in.

There's actually an interesting reverse correlation between 'amount of money spent' and 'strength of ideology' - the more fanatical the person, the less money they spend.

Well, you'd certainly know about that

 

[bramling]

Why? It's their business, and English law makes it clear that there's no given right to purchase anything from a shop.

The amount of entitlement here is off-the-scale, to be honest.

Our economy is currently in a very dangerous position - high inflation and stumbling economic growth, a vicious cycle. I’m not sure entitlement has much to do with anything, we need to do everything possible to push towards normality, not cling on to the last two years for misguided, nefarious or virtue-signalling reasons.

Would opportunist Putin have decided to go ahead with Ukraine if we hadn’t trashed our finances over the last two years? One way or other, we’ve put ourselves in an unenviable position.

Meanwhile, I don’t think anyone should be attempting to defend the “no exemptions” signage, which is still not too hard to find. It was unacceptable over the last two years, and it’s unacceptable now.

 

[Eyersey468]

I absolutely despise the term “expected” when used in this way. It’s passive-aggressive dictatorialism at its absolute worst.

I agree

 

[Freightmaster]

I absolutely despise the term “expected” when used in this way. It’s passive-aggressive dictatorialism at its absolute worst.

It reminds me of the equally patronising "thank you for driving carefully through our village" signs!




MARK

 

[Bantamzen]

Why? It's their business, and English law makes it clear that there's no given right to purchase anything from a shop.

Why? Because English law does not require them. And as I'm sure you must be aware working as you do with data, there is nothing to support the wearing of cloth masks in public settings , demonstrated by the spread of the virus even in countries with much stronger mask laws than here (and just I'd suggest reading the mask thread for the debate on that). The government at great cost propped up many of these businesses through the tightest restrictions at an eye-wateringly high cost, the least they can do is help the government get things back to normal and help re-stimulate a stumbling economy.

The amount of entitlement here is off-the-scale, to be honest.

Nope, just the result of over 2 years of debating & scrutinising all these covid based restrictions, most of which have wholeheartedly failed to prove anywhere near conclusively effective. In a world where covid-restrictions and support for them has become quasi-religious (remember the clapping & pot banging?), these forums have been a rare breath of fresh air where the issues were actually debated and researched. The self-entitled were the ones demanding that the government keep them from the virus at all costs, even though it was a statistical and biological impossibility. Just ask China how they are getting on....

 

[Cloud Strife]

Why? Because English law does not require them. And as I'm sure you must be aware working as you do with data, there is nothing to support the wearing of cloth masks in public settings , demonstrated by the spread of the virus even in countries with much stronger mask laws than here (and just I'd suggest reading the mask thread for the debate on that). The government at great cost propped up many of these businesses through the tightest restrictions at an eye-wateringly high cost, the least they can do is help the government get things back to normal and help re-stimulate a stumbling economy.

English law may not require them, but nor does English law require businesses to accept customers, as long as they aren't breaking the various laws regarding equality. One beautiful thing about English law is that it isn't proscriptive, so it allows everything that isn't explicitly prohibited.

I work with data, yes, but I also strongly believe that businesses are free to set their own rules as long as they aren't discriminating against someone on the grounds of race, sex, etc. Not every business received support, nor did they even need it in some cases.

Nope, just the result of over 2 years of debating & scrutinising all these covid based restrictions, most of which have wholeheartedly failed to prove anywhere near conclusively effective. In a world where covid-restrictions and support for them has become quasi-religious (remember the clapping & pot banging?), these forums have been a rare breath of fresh air where the issues were actually debated and researched. The self-entitled were the ones demanding that the government keep them from the virus at all costs, even though it was a statistical and biological impossibility. Just ask China how they are getting on....

Clapping and pot banging was ridiculous, and as mentioned by other people, NHS staff tended to absolutely hate it.

Keeping everyone from the virus was an impossibility, and it required a lot of personal responsibility on the part of individuals too. Wearing masks outside was and is ridiculous given what the science says (except at mass events), but wearing a mask inside was really a non-issue for me. I don't deny that it was tiring to wear it, but it wasn't the end of the world.

At the same time, I do think that it's pointless to try and protect people now. We've all had the chance to get three vaccines, and now it should be about solely personal responsibility. Poland actually has the right idea by requiring masks in medical settings (pharmacies, at the GP, in hospitals, etc) but not requiring them elsewhere. Unfortunately, a lot of people went immediately back to invading other people's personal space.

But really, if a business requires you to wear it and you don't want to wear it, why not just go elsewhere with a minimum of fuss? I'm boycotting Auchan for remaining in the Russian market, but I don't need to shout about it. I just don't go there.